OT: Have A&M and Missouri proved the SEC over-rated?

During the last few years, when talk amongst football fans/media turned to SEC conference superiority (often discussed as "vastly" superior vs. the other major conferences), you would often hear many fans complain about the media drum-beating for that POV, and some fans proclaiming that the SEC itself was over-rated and not superior, other than a team or two at the top.

I always felt that it was a simple fact that the conference was superior to any other, and that not only the national titles but head to head records and NFL talent sent proved that beyond a reaonable doubt. But with Texas A&M and Missouri, two teams that in no way were even top level Big 12 teams, coming into the conference and succeeding quite nicely, I'm starting to wonder myself (recall how dismissive most of us were about adding Missouri during B1G expansion talks). Both schools were mid-level teams in their old conferences, and now are in the top half of the SEC, with Missouri in the title game.

So what does this say to you? Has it changed your view of the SEC and it's "superiority?"

do NFL teams draft based on media narrative? i find it hard to believe that the SEC would have so many more players drafted than the rest of the NCAA if there were not an overall talent advantage. i suppose talent does not necessarily equate to better "teams," but it doesn't hurt.

i tend to agree with you that the SEC is over rated, but i would say that it is still the best conference. unfortunately, we have not a lot to go on except drafts and bowl games.

The amount of players drafted from a conference is not that great of a metric to determine the strength of a conference. A better metric in my opinion would be the amount of pro bowl players from a conference.

So you say the Pro Bowl is the worst way to measure a conference's strength, but then you show evidence that while does not stongly prove it but definitely does not disprove it to warrant the "worst" description...

As for the "evidence", the only thing that jumps out to me is the ACC, but I'm assuming FSU and Miami accounted for a high percentage of those 16. Otherwise, I'd say those numbers support my claim that it is a better metric than the draft.

Also, your link shows 2 players (maybe 3 since I'm not sure about Aldon Smith) that werent in the SEC when they were drafted.

I'll agree that Pro Bowl players is not the best metric to determine the strength of a conference, but I don't see how it is a terrible one. And maybe I'm missing your point, but I don't see what you are trying to show with your Broyles and Johnson example. And finally, what would you suggest as a better metric to judge a conference's strength?

I chose these guys in particular because they fit the point very well and hopefully they're players that people on this board are familiar with, what with the Lions and all. Between those two players, one is clearly a Pro Bowl caliber receiver, and the other is just a guy in the NFL. In the league, the difference in talent between those two guys is super obvious, because they're playing at a really high level of competition.

Any player good enough to make it to the NFL is likely to be some level of star in college. At least all-conference level, possibly all-American. So the upgrade from "guy who can play in the NFL" and "guy who can star in the NFL" is minimized at the college level, because both of those guys are better than most of the players they'll face.

The point of all this, if you haven't gotten there already, is that a team with 10 future NFL players in its starting lineup is going to be better than a team with 5 future all-pros and no other NFL caliber players. At least in most instances. The best thing you can have in college football is a large number of good to great players. The number of elite players you have doesn't really matter if the supporting cast isn't there. And you don't measure the supporting cast in pro-bowl appearances, you measure them in the draft.

Another point, all-pro caliber players are exceedingly rare, so small sample sizes make their usefulness as a metric even worse.

Ok, I see your point and agree with it to a certain extent. The reason I believe the Pro Bowl is a better metric is because of all the misses in the draft. Maybe the best metric then is just to count up the amount of players from each conference after X years from now, but even then injuries will affect those numbers.

It is really hard to separate myth from reality regarding the quality of the SEC, because the media (especially ESPN, who has a vested interest) have helped shape perception, but there is also the fact that the SEC is 8-0 in BCS title games, 9-0 if you count the Bama-LSU rematch.

That type of success is what is at the root of the 'confirmatory bias' shown by the media.

but thats also admitting the Big Ten might be overrated given Penn State won the BIG in its 2nd year(dominated actually) and Nebraska did what Mizzou just did, make the championship game in its 2nd year.

One thing that is interesting to me about Missouri's path to this moment is that they were in fact trending upwards in their final years in the Big 12 - from 2007 to 2011, they didn't do worse than 8-5 and had won 10 or more three times. Their introduction to the SEC in 2012 was a bit jarring, but they seem to have adjusted very well as evidenced by the fact that they will be in the SEC Championship Game in their 2nd year in the conference.

I would think something similar can be said for Kevin Sumlin and the Aggies, and indeed, Sumlin took over as Texas A&M was embarking on its SEC adventure. He took a middling team in the BIg 12 and has led them to a very good record thus far in the SEC.

If that's the basis for judgment, I would probably agree - the fact that two average to above averge (i.e., historically not world-beating) teams can join the conference and adapt to it and do well makes me wonder just how good the SEC actually might be, although I never really believed that it was so many miles above everyone else. That being said, they do perform at an impressively high level as a conference.

But, it's really a shame that the Big Ten with traditional powers Michigan, Ohio State, Penn State, and Nebraska have struggled. The Big Ten has everything it needs to be the top conference in the land. Just hasn't turned out that way.

I think the SEC has been overrated, but TAMU hasn't done shit since joining the conference, and Missouri has had 1 great year, while playing the type of schedule that everybody on here knocks Michigan State for playing

If you go back further, of course, you get the one year Missouri sniffed a conference championship in 2007 and then a bunch of years where they were .500 or worse in conference. A&M is pretty damn similar until you get back into the 90's.

At worst you can say is that two middling Big 12 programs entered the SEC and did no worse. According to SEC partisans, they should have been creamed week in and week out for all eternity based on the improved competition. That hasn't happened.

As a Mizzou fan (and therefore a former follower of the Big 12 and Texas A&M to some degree), I feel like I can provide a bit of insight.

In A&M's last few years in the Big 12, they were always talented and threatening but couldn't quite put things together. It reminded me a bit of the 49ers before Harbaugh got there. I would contribute their sudden success in the SEC more to the rise of Sumlin and Manziel than to lack of competition in the SEC.

As for Mizzou, they had a good 5 year run at the end of their Big 12 life, but they've been the very definition of a program on the rise. They started with an innovative and exciting offense, used that to build a pretty good team, and used that to start recruiting defense generally and offensive linemen. Last year was the first year they had all the pieces in place with no gaping hole in their game, and then all of the offensive playmakers got hurt.

This year they got all those guys back and it shows. This Mizzou team is much, much better than the Chase Daniel team that ranked #1 in the nation going into the conference championship or the Blaine Gabbert team that beat Oklahoma and Texas. For the first time ever, they have an offensive line good enough that they can run the ball in the red zone, which has made a huge difference. I remember watching Mizzou games past and it was a forgone conclusion that if they didn't score from more than 20 yards out they'd have to settle for a field goal.

So while the SEC is probably overrated in the media, I don't think the performance of Mizzou and A&M is necessarily a sign of that so much as those teams reaching the potential that was there already. And really, the SEC is still probably the best conference in college football, and the addition of Mizzou and A&M has only made it stronger. Subjectively, there are probably 3-5 really good teams in the SEC, and the other conferences have 2-3 each.

I hear what you're saying, especially with respect to last year's Mizzou record not necesserily being reflective of the type of team they were. But at some point, as the saying goes, you are what the record says you are. If Mizzou wins Saturday, it'll be its first conference championship since 1969. I don't care how "on the rise" your program is, if the SEC was as tough as the south wants us to believe, Mizzou wouldn't have a shot at its first championship in 44 years in its second season in the SEC. Similarly, A&M wouldn't break through its decade+ streak of mediocrity its first year in the SEC.

Both teams may have been poised for success in the Big 12, but that is merely support for the point that teams that are successful in other conferences would probably be successful if transplanted into the SEC.

As someone below said, the SEC can be both the best conference in the country and simultaneously overrated. I think you said it perfectly with "... teams that are successful in other conferences would probably be successful if transplanted into the SEC." The difference I see between the SEC and other conferences is that they simply have more of those teams.

The SEC's run of dominance will end at some point, maybe it starts this year with Alabama's loss and the possibility of an ACC/B1G championship game (oh god no please not OSU nonononono), but there is a reason it's gone on so long. The SEC has a really high number of teams that have the talent, history, and prestige to win football games and recruit on a high level. This means that in any given year they have maybe 7 teams with a chance to put it all together and be national championship competetive, while other conferences have maybe 3 or 5. It certainly doesn't mean that all SEC teams are better than all other conference teams, or even anything close to it. They just have more teams playing at a high level than any other conference, at least for the moment.

I think they have the most programs capable of producing an elite team in any given year, but their 3rd best team on down can be as bad as the 3rd best team on down in any other conference. What always bothers me about the SEC homers is their refusal to accept that the 5th or 6th best team in the conference is probably not a top-10 or top-15 squad.

I said they can be, didn't say they are every year. Something that is pretty easily shown from years of Big Ten-SEC equality in bowls like the Citrus and the Gator. I certainly wouldn't try and make any positive comparisons between the Big Ten and damn near any conference this year. Thuogh I expect Wisconsin to hold their own against an SEC opponent in the Capital One bowl this year. But would I perhaps pick UCLA, Washington or USC in a matchup with South Carolina this year? The same South Carolina that lost to Tennessee? Yeah, I think I would.

is the proof I point to when discussing how overrated that conference has to be. I posted somethings to this effect, yesterday. Look at their records in the last few years in the Big 12 and look how quickly they become top SEC teams. A&M even beat Alabama last year.

I don't understand how this topic NEVER seems to be mentioned on ESPN.

is to get more new good teams or get more wins for the shitty teams already in your conference. i am pretty convinced that the purdue, indiana, illinois, northwestern, minnesota wing of the conference got exactly the teams they wanted as they get another shot at a 6 th win for bowl eligibility

The main thing is that it's systemic... once the ESSEEESEE narrative took hold, it provided justification for the overrating, say, a 4 loss SEC team because the 4 teams they lost to were all in the top 25.

Not only all of this, but people are forgetting that Mizzou did not blow Indiana out by any means... In fact, Wisconsin and Ohio smothered Indiana far more than Mizzou could.

Nobody doubts that the top 2-3 teams in the SEC are usually very very good and among the best. In fact, the top team in the SEC is usually the best. But it's just simply not true that teams like Tennessee or Florida or Arkansas can hang with the likes of Michigan State, Ohio, or Wisconsin (at least, this year). In the previous 3 years, that might have been the case, but there's been enough coaching stability for the past 2 years that this year and probably next year will be significant improvements.

"I always felt that it was a simple fact that the conference was superior to any other, and that not only the national titles but head to head records and NFL talent sent proved that beyond a reaonable doubt."

You might want to check those head to head records. You've been bamboozled by ESPN. It's simply not true. If I were on a computer I could give you an article that just came out yesterday showing they're barely better than .500.

How about those matchup take place between evenly matched teams and not ALWAYS where they have the advantadge of playing against a lower ranked team? They stack the deck not on regarding location of games but also who plays who.

My ideal scenario is that the Buckeyes win Saturday and then MSU does not make a BCS bowl. This would flatten out the pecking order in the bowls so that it would be more even. Getting all those years of 2 BCS teams has hurt the conference image because our 4 or 5 team ended up playing another conference's 2 or 3 team. The media never acknowledges this.

It's shocking to me that with all the influence that graduates out of the B1G year after year, we couldn't be the ones that properly manipulate the media for B1G success just like it's menioned in this article.

I rarely go on Facebook anymore. I happened to go on yesterday and that article was in my newsfeed. It echoes some of the points I've been making for years. I was disappointed that he didn't mention the 2006 fiasco in relation to the Bama lsu title game.

This chart comes off of something called "Mr. SEC" so take it for what it's worth... But, I think the reason the SEC has the feel of the best is their overwhelming BCS bowl success. You can definitely argue that they are set up to succeed in the bowls based on matchups and locations, but they have done exceptionally well in BCS games and very well overall.

They also generally play a weak OOC schedule, so they reduce their chances of bad regular season losses.

I always find it fun and interesting, once the regular season is over, to go back and look at the pre-season polls and compare them with the final week polls. This year is no different, and maybe it helps (or not?) with the question being posed. Looking at the coaches' poll...

Of note: Not only were both Auburn and Missouri unranked pre-season, but they also weren't even in the "others receiving votes" section. So the championship game will be played by a newbie and a team that was 3-9 last year, both of whom so-called experts thought were irrelevant at the beginning of the year. I don't know if this helps with the OP or not. You could maybe say, "OMG!! There's so much parity in the SEC!!!" Or you could also say that just maybe those vaunted creams of the crop aren't so unbeatable after all. Or maybe it just shows how silly a pre-season poll is. But hey... they got South Carolina exactly right.

I would say that Auburn and Missouri are ranked as high as they are, as compared to say Oklahoma St., because teams like Georgia, A&M, and Florida were criminally overrated to start the season. Auburn was only #4 before the Alabama game on the strength of wins over A&M and a miracle over Georgia. Missouri only jumped in the rankings after beating Georgia and the rotting corpse of Florida.

Everyone ignores the fact that A&M didn't beat anyone all season; Georgia lost to Clemson at full strength, lost to Vandy while beat up, and was taken to double OT by a mediocre Georgia Tech team two weeks after losing to Auburn; and Florida lost to Miami at full strength and then lost to Vandy and Georgia Southern.

It would be one thing if Auburn and Missouri laid down the path of destruction Florida State did in their wins, but that was far from the case. They simply rose so fast because an SEC win was valued more than any other win by pollsters.

How you answer this question is really just a function of what your pre-existing belief is regarding the SEC.

There is not enough meaningful data on these teams to judge.

You could just as easily challenge the premise of your question than accept it. Mizzou went 5-7 last year, and did not play either Bama or Auburn in the regular season this year, where their biggest wins are against 8-4 ATM and 8-4 Georgia. ATM went 8-4 this year, and 10-2 last year, when they beat Bama. Aside from the Bama win, in 2012 ATM lost their other two tough SEC games, and their biggest conference win was over 8-5 Miss. State. This year ATM lost to every ranked conference team it played, and its biggest win was 8-4 Vandy.

Overall the SEC is the best conference relative to Bowl wins/Championships etc. The main issue is the top-to-bottom quality of the conferences and players. The talent beds in the south (FL/LA/GA/AL/TX) where football is king drive this phenomenon, but if you look at median W-L records of the conference I bet it would tell a different story (e.g. SEC being top heavy).. I think you have to look at it relative to championships/bowl wins but also total wins in and out of conference and the overall strength of all the teams. Just because your top teams are the best doesn't mean that you're the best overall. On a championships basis in the BCS era there is unfortunately no argument. I hate the SEC (except for LSU - whose fans were friendly and knowlegable when they came here to play UW and Florida - who has yet to beat M)..

Missouri has not beaten a current top 20 team since it joined the SEC. ZERO. The SEC East is a legitimate tire fire this year with Florida's implosion, Georgia's injuries, and everyone else just sucking. That's a 5-3 conference team headed to the Cotton Bowl if they played in the SEC West.

A&M has what? One win over Alabama last year with the best player in the country. Literally, that's it. They went 4-4 in the SEC this year and have looked awful the last few games when Manziel got banged up.

I live in SEC country. When Mizzou took their lumps in their first SEC season, there was a lot of, "Ha ha, welcome to the SEC." Now that they have won a division title, Mizzou is suddenly viewed as a full member of the SEC. The thought seems to be, "of course they are playing well, they are members of the SEC." No thought is given to the implications of a middling Big 12 team rising so quickly through the SEC ranks.